Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2d 66
remand order. The district court again found the plaintiff's contentions to be
without merit and on August 15, 1973, ordered judgment for the defendants.
While the motion of the defendants, which the district court sustained, was
denominated a motion to dismiss, all the parties proceeded on the basis of a
motion for summary judgment at the hearing on remand. They submitted
documentary records from penal institutions, affidavits, and a transcribed tape
recording, as well as live testimony. For all practical purposes, then, the motion
was heard and disposed of as a motion for summary judgment and we treat the
order disposing of it as the entry of summary judgment. So regarded, the
judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Title 28 U.S.C. 1915(d)2 provides that a district court may dismiss an action
which has proceeded in forma pauperis 'if satisfied that the action is frivolous
or malicious.' In applying that statute, especially broad discretion has been
vested in federal district courts to deny state prisoners the privilege of
proceeding in forma pauperis in civil actions against officials of the institution
in which they are incarcerated. Shobe v. California, 362 F.2d 545, 546 (9 Cir.),
cert. denied, 385 U.S. 887, 87 S.Ct. 185, 17 L.Ed.2d 115 (1966); Conway v.
Fugge, 439 F.2d 1397 (9 Cir. 1971). Federal courts must be diligent in acting to
prevent state prisoners from calling upon the financial support of the federal
government to prosecute frivolous civil suits intended to harass state prison
officials.
In exercising its discretion a district court may properly consider court records
for the purpose of determining whether an action brought in forma pauperis
must be dismissed as frivolous. Conway v. Oliver, 429 F.2d 1307, 1308 (9 Cir.
1970). In the instant case, the district court, in its initial order of dismissal,
specifically referred to the record of Daye v. Department of Corrections, No. C-242--G--70 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 2, 1971), aff'd mem., No. 72--2019 (4 Cir. Oct.
11, 1973), and Daye v. Rice, No. 2237--Civil (E.D.N.C. Oct. 19, 1969), both of
We remanded that initial disposition because we were of the opinion that the
allegations if proved would state a cause of action and that a summary
dismissal was inappropriate. At that time it was unclear from the record
whether the examination of the allegations by the district court was sufficient to
support the finding that the case was frivolous. The district court held the
evidentiary hearing as we directed for the purpose of determining whether the
allegations in the complaint had a factual basis or were merely a continuation of
the series of meritless allegations presented in the previous actions filed by
Daye.
On remand, the district court examined those allegations in some detail. The
evidence adduced reveals that Daye's transfer from Caswell Prison to Central
Prison was the result of Daye's own request to be sent there for medical
treatment and not, as alleged, to punish him for his legal writing. Daye also
alleged that his request for transfer from Central Prison after he completed his
medical treatment was denied to punish him for his writ writing. The evidence
adduced at the hearing, however, convincingly demonstrates that Daye was
retained at Central Prison because he had assaulted a fellow inmate at Caswell
Prison with a deadly wespon and it was deemed necessary to hold him at
Central Prison, a maximum security facility. In view of the flood of legal
correspondence conducted by the plaintiff with this court as well as others, his
allegation that he was denied use of the mails is patently frivolous. Williams v.
Field, 394 F.2d 329, 332 (9 Cir. 1968). These facts, revealed in the proceedings
upon remand, when viewed in the light of Daye's prior meritless suits, provide
the necessary support for the district court's initial conclusion that these
allegations were merely a continuation of the series of meritless charges
presented to federal courts by this plaintiff.
Accordingly, the order of the district court terminating this action is affirmed.
10
Affirmed.